On Aug 2, 5:08 pm, The Editor <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 5:58 AM, DrunkenMonk<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Having a math function can give shorter code, which is good. However,
> > if you want a counter set to a math function, then having to invoke
> > two functions is annoying.
>
> Can you explain what you mean by a counter set to a math function?
> What I'm suggesting is it makes more sense to write:
Initialising a counter to the result of a mathematical expression
should not require a call to counter and math.
>
> [(math "(3 * (8 + 2)) / 4")] than [(counter "(3 * (8 + 2)) / 4")]
>
> As far as the all the other capabilities of counter they would be the
> same. You would be able to change increments, increase/decrease, set
> multiple id's, etc., none of that will change.
>
> One other change is that the var shortcut would probably only work for
> math now, that is you could equally do:
>
> { (3 * (8 + 2)) / 4 }
>
> but not other counter kinds of functions unless you used the full
> [(counter)] markup. This might cause problems on some plugins.
I've never goten the var shortcut to work, probably because I always
need functions in my markups. Hmm, can you use that to get a variable
group?
{p{::integer}}?
> Another change is the math function would automatically output data,
> while the counter would be invisible unless displayed, as current.
>
> > I currently have the old math plugin enabled, and use both.
>
> Actually, this plugin is completely unnecessary at present because
> everything in it is available in counter. I'm suggesting we move it to
> core, and then use the counter function just for its intended
> purpose--counting.
I use it because the output=true part is really annoying when used 4
times per line. I'm all for a math function in core.
> > I would simply include a math function, but not remove the
> > funtionality from counter.
>
> Certainly this is doable, but it seems a bit confusing to me.
> Redundant. Less aesthetic. :) It would be better to not add a new
> function than to have two functions doing the same thing. At least now
> we have the aesthetics of economy. But to me the more important
> aesthetic is intuitiveness. Software like BoltWire is challenging
> enough to learn. Anything we can do to make it easier is a step in the
> right direction.
I certainly don't mind. Although, if you use the math function as it
stands now, put an extra try-catch around the exec statement. I
managed to break it yesterday by giving some wierd input.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"BoltWire" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/boltwire?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
